The Third Duma

Published:Proletary, No. 18, October 29, 1907.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 13,

      pages123-132.Translated:Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thegovernment is garnering the results of the infamous
crime which it committed against the people on June 3. The grotesque
electoral law which, for the benefit of a handful of landlords and
capitalists, completely distorts the will not only of the nation as a
whole, but even of the enfranchised minority, has yielded the fruits that
tsarism hankered for. At the time of writing this article 432 out of 442
deputies have been returned to the Duma, leaving another 10 to be
elected. The results of the elections can, therefore, be considered
sufficiently clear. According to a fairly accurate estimate the members
elected are 18 Social-Democrats, 13 others of the Left, 46 Cadets, 55
members of groups standing close to them, 92 Octobrists, 21 members of
groups belonging to allied trends, 171 members of various Right-wing
trends, including 32 members of the Union of the Russian

People,[2]and 16 non-party deputies.

Thus,not counting an Insignificant number of non-party deputies, all
the others may be divided into four groups:

the extreme Left, constituting a little over 7 per cent, the Left (Cadet)
Centre 23 per cent, the Right (Octobrist) Centre 25.1 per cent, and the
Right 40 per cent; the non-party deputies are a little less than 4 per
cent.

Noneof these groups by itself has an absolute majority. Does this
result fully meet the wishes and expectations of those who inspired and
drafted the new electoral law? We believe that this question should be
answered in the affirmative, and that the new Russian
“parliament”, from the point of view of the ruling groups
supporting the tsaristautocracy, is achambre introuvable[1]in the full sense of that word.

Thepoint is that with us, as in every country that has an autocratic
or semi-autocratic regime, there are really two governments: an official
one—a Ministry, and another one behind the scenes—the court
camarilla. This latter always and everywhere is backed by the most
reactionary sections of society, by the feudal—in our country
Black-Hundred—nobility, which draws its economic strength from
large-scale landownership with the semi-serf economy this involves. Effete,
depraved, and degenerate this social group presents a striking example of
the most revolting parasitism. To what depths of depravity this
degeneration can descend is borne out by the scandalous Moltke v. Harden
trial in Berlin, which revealed what a filthy cesspool the influential
camarilla at the court of the semi-autocratic German Emperor Wilhelm II
really was. It is no secret that with us in Russia similar abominations in
corresponding circles are no exception. The mass of the Right in the Third
Duma—at least the overwhelming majority if not all of them—will
defend the interests of precisely this social canker, these whited
sepulchres, bequeathed to us from the dismal past. The preservation of a
feudal economy, of aristocratic privileges and the regime of the autocracy
and nobility is a matter of life and death to these mastodons and
ichthyosauri, for to call them

“zubri”[3]is to pay them a compliment.

Byusing their all-powerful influence at court, the mastodons and ichthyosauri
usually try their utmost to take full monopoly of possession of the official
government as well—the Ministry. Usually a considerable part of the
Ministry consists of their henchmen. Very often, however, the majority of the
Ministry, as regards its composition, does not fully meet the requirements of
the camarilla. The antediluvian predator, the predator of the feudal era, finds
a competitor here in the shape of a predator of the epoch of primary
accumulation—one just as coarse, greedy, and parasitic, but having a
certain cultural veneer and, most important of all, desirous also of
seizing a sizable shareof the official pie in the shape of guarantees, subsidies, concessions,
protective tariffs, etc. This section of the landowning and industrial
bourgeoisie, which is typical of the era of primary accumulation, finds its
expression in Octobrism and the trends associated with it. It has many interests
in common with the Black Hundredssansphrases—economic
parasitism and privileges, as well as jingoism, are as essential from the
Octobrist as from the Black-Hundred point of view.

Thuswe have a Black-Hundred-Octobrist majority in the Third Duma reaching the
imposing figure of 284 deputies out of 432, that is, 65.7 per cent, or over
two-thirds of the total number.

Thisis a stronghold that enables the government in its agrarian policy to help
the ruined landlords to get rid of their lands by profitably fleecing the
land-poor peasants, to turn labour legislation into an instrument for the gross
exploitation of the proletariat by capital, and to ensure that financial policy
keeps the main burden of taxation on the shoulders of the masses. It is a
stronghold of protectionism and militarism. No one can deny the
counter-revolutionary nature of the Octobrist-Black-Hundred majority.

Butthe main point is that this is not the only majority in the Third
Duma. There is another majority.

TheBlack Hundreds are a dependable ally of the Octobrists, just as the court
camarilla is an ally of the Ministry in defending tsarism. But just as the court
camarilla displays an inherent urge not so much towards an alliance with the
Ministry as towards dominating it, so do the Black Hundreds yearn for a
dictatorship over the Octobrists, try to boss them and keep them under.

Theinterests of capitalism, grossly predatory and parasitic as it is, cannot
be reconciled with the undivided sway of feudal landownership. Both of these
kindred social groups are trying to seize the lion’s share of the pie, and
that accounts for their inevitable differences on questions of local
self-government and the central organisation of state power. The Black Hundreds
in the Zemstvos and municipal councils want to keep things as they are, but in
the centre what they want is “down with the accursed
constitution”. The Octobrists want to increase their influence both in theZemstvos and municipal councils, but in the centre there has to be a
      “constitution”, even if a docktailed one that is fictitious as
      far as the masses are concerned.

Notfor nothing doesRusskoye Znamya[4]revile the Octobrists, whileGolos Moskvy,[5]in turn, finds that there are more members of
the Right in the Third Duma than are needed.

Thus,the objective course of events compels the Octobrists to seek
allies in this respect. They could have found them long ago in the Left
(Cadet) Centre, which has long been declaring its unhypocritical devotion
to the constitution, but the trouble is that the young Russian bourgeoisie
of the period of capitalist accumulation now represent ed by the Cadets has
preserved from the past some very inconvenient friends and certain
unpleasant traditions. It was found, however, that traditions in the
political sphere could easily be dispensed with: the Cadets had declared
themselves monarchists long ago, even before the First Duma; they had
tacitly refused to form a responsible ministry in the Second Duma; and
Cadet schemes for various “freedoms” are hedged in with so many
stumbling-blocks, barbed wire entanglements, and pitfalls that there is
every hope of further progress in this respect. The Cadets’ attitude
towards uprisings and strikes had always been one of reproach—at
first in a mild, then in a melancholy way; after December 1905 the reproach
became half disdain, and after the dissolution of the First Duma flat
rejection and condemnation. Diplomacy, deals, bargaining with the powers
that be—that is the basis of Cadet tactics. As to inconvenient
friends, they have long been called simply “neighbours” and
recently have been publicly declared to be enemies

Anagreement, then, is possible, and so we have another majority, a
counter-revolutionary one again—the Octobrist-Cadet majority. To
be. sure, it is somewhat less than half the number of deputies elected so
far—214 out of 432— but, first, some if not all of the non-party
deputies will undoubtedly join it, and, secondly, there is every reason to
believe that it will increase during the further elections, since the towns and
most of the gubernia electoral conferences in which elections have not yet
taken place will returnan overwhelming majority of either Octobrists or Cadets.

Thegovernment considers itself master of the situation. The liberal
bourgeoisie apparently takes this to be a fact. In these circumstances the
deal is hound, more than ever before, to hear the stamp of a most
disgusting and treacherous compromise, to be more exact—the surrender
of all liberal positions that have the slightest democratic
tinge. Obviously, no local governing or central legislative bodies can be
at all democratically constituted by means of such a deal without a new
mass movement. An. Octobrist-Cadet majority is not able to give us
that. And can we expect any at all tolerable solution of the agrarian
question or any alleviation of the workers’ situation from a Black-Hundred
Octobrist majority, from the savage landlords in league with the capitalist
robbers? The only answer to that question can be a hitter laugh.

Theposition is clear:our “chambre introuvable” isincapable of accomplishing the objective tasks of the revolution even in
the most distorted form. It cannot even partly heal the gaping wounds
inflicted upon Russia by the old regime— it can only cover up those wounds
with wretched, sour, fictitious reforms.

Theelection results only confirm our firm belief thatRussia
cannot emerge from her present crisis in a peaceful way.

Underthese conditions the immediate tasks confronting Social-Democrats at
the present time are quite clear. Making the triumph of socialism its
ultimate aim, being convinced that political freedom is necessary to
achieve that aim, and bearing in mind the circumstance that this freedom at
the present time cannot be achieved in a peaceful way, without open mass
actions, Social-Democracy is obliged now, as before, to put democratic and
revolutionary tasks on the immediate order of the day, without for a
moment, of coarse, abandoning either propaganda of socialism or defence of
proletarian class interests in the narrow sense of the word. Representing
as it does the most advanced, most revolutionary class in modern
society— the proletariat, which in the Russian revolution has proved
by deeds its fitness for the role of leader in the mass struggle—Social-Democracy is obliged to do everything it possibly can to retain that
role for the proletariat in the approaching new phase of the revolutionary
struggle, a phase characterised more than ever before by a preponderance of
political consciousness over spontaneity. To achieve that endSocial-Democracy must strive with all its might for hegemony over the
democratic masses and for developing revolutionary energy among them.

Sucha striving brings the party of the proletariat into sharp conflict with the
other class political organisations, for whom, by virtue of the group interests
which they represent, a democratic revolution is hateful and dangerous not only
for its own sake but especially in view of the hegemony of the proletariat in
it, a hegemony fraught with the danger of socialism.

Itis perfectly clear and beyond doubt that both the Duma
majorities—the Black-Hundred-Octobrist and the
Octobrist-Cadet—with the alternate backing of which the Stolypin
government hopes to balance itself, that both these majorities, each in its
own way—on different issues— will be
counter-revolutionary. There can be no question of anystrugglewith the Ministry on the part of one or the other of these majorities or
even of their separate elements— a struggle in any way systematic or
regular. Only separate temporary conflicts are possible. Such conflicts are
possible first of all between the Black-Hundred elements of the first-named
majority and the government. It should not be forgotten, however, that
these conflicts cannot be deep-seated, and the government, without
abandoning its counter-revolutionary basis, can quite comfortably and
easily emerge the victor in these conflicts through the backing of the
second majority. With the best will in the world, revolutionary
Social-Democracy and, together with it, all the other revolutionary-minded
elements of the Third Duma cannot use these conflicts in the interests of
the revolution other than for purely propaganda purposes; there can. be no
question whatever of “supporting” any of the conflicting sides,
because such support, in itself, would be a counter-revolutionary act.

Somewhatgreater and better use, perhaps, could be made of possible conflicts
between various elements of thesecond majority—between the Cadets, on the one hand, and the Octobrists
and the government, on the other. But here, too, the position is such that,
owing to objective conditions no less than to subjective moods and intentions,
these conflicts will be both superficial and transient, merely a means by which
political hucksters will find it easier to make deals on terms outwardly more
decorous but in essence opposed to the interests of democracy. Consequently,
while not refraining from utilising even such superficial and in frequent
conflicts,Social-Democracy must wage a stubborn struggle for democratic and
revolutionary aims not only against the government, the Black Hundreds, and the
Octobrists, but also against the Cadets.

Theseare the principalaimswhich Social-Democracy must set itself in
the Third Duma. Obviously, these aims are the same as those that confronted the
party of the proletariat in the Second Duma. They have been quite clearly
formulated in the first paragraph of the resolution of the London Congress on
the State Duma. This paragraph reads:

“Theimmediate political aims of Social-Democracy in the Duma are:

(a) to explain to the people the utter uselessness of the Duma as a means
of achieving the demands of the proletariat and the revolutionary petty
bourgeoisie, especially the peasantry;

(b) to explain to the people the impossibility of achieving political
freedom by parliamentary means as long as real power remains in the hands
of the tsarist government, and to explain the inevitability of an open
struggle of the masses against the armed forces of absolutism, a struggle
aimed at securing complete victory, namely, the assumption of power by the
masses and the convocation of a constituent assembly on the basis of
universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot.”

Thisresolution, particularly in its concluding words, formulates also the very
importantspecialtask of the Social-Democrats in the Third Duma, a
task which the Social-Democratic deputies must fulfil in order to expose the
lull infamy of the crime committed on June 3. They must expose this crime, of
course, not from the liberal stand point of a formal breach of the constitution,
but as a gross and brazen violation of the interests of the broad masses of the
people, as a shameless and outrageous falsificationof popular representation. hence the need forexplaining to the broad
masses the utter failure of the Third Duma to meet the interests and
demands, of the people, and consequently for wide and vigorous propaganda
of the idea of a constituent assembly with full power based on universal,
direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot.

TheLondon resolution also defines very clearly the nature of Social-Democratic
activities in the State Duma in the following terms: “The critical,
propagandist, agitational, and organisational role of the Social-Democratic
group in the Duma should be brought to the fore”; “the general
character of the Duma struggle should be subordinated to the entire struggle of
the proletariat outside the Duma, it being particularly important in this
connection to make use of mass economic struggle and to serve the interests of
that struggle.” It is perfectly obvious what a close, inseparable
connection there is between such Duma activities and the aims, which, as stated
above, Social-Democracy should set itself in the Duma at the present
moment. Peaceful legislative work by the Social-Democrats in the Third Duma
under conditions which make mass movements highly probable would not only be
inadvisable, would not only be absurd quixotry, but a downright betrayal of
proletarian interests. It is bound to lead Social-Democracy to “a
whittling down of its slogans, which can only discredit it in the eyes of the
masses and divorce it from the revolutionary struggle of the
proletariat”. The spokes men of the proletariat in the Duma could commit
no greater crime than this.

Thecritical activity of Social-Democracy should be expanded to the full and
pointed as sharply as possible, all the more as there will be an abundance of
material for this in the Third Duma. The Social-Democrats in the Duma must
completely expose the class nature of both the government’s and the
liberals’ measures and proposals that will be passed through the Duma. Moreover,
in full keeping with the Congress resolution, particular attention must be given
to those measures and proposals which affect the economic interests of the broad
masses; this applies to the labour and agrarian questions, the budget, etc. On
all these issues Social-Democracy must counter the governmentaland liberal standpoints with its own socialist and democratic demands;
these issues are the most sensitive nerve of public life and at the same time
the most sensitive spot of the government and of those social groups upon which
the two Duma majorities rest.

TheSocial-Democrats in the Duma will carry out all these agitational,
propaganda, and organisational tasks not only by their speeches from the Duma
rostrum but also by introducing Bills and making interpellations to the
government. There is one important difficulty here, however: to introduce a Bill
or to make an interpellation the signatures of no less thanthirtydeputies are required.

TheThird Duma does not and will not have thirty Social-Democrats. That
is indubitable. Hence the Social-Democratsalone, without the
assistance of other groups, can neither introduce a Bill nor make
interpellations. Undoubtedly, this makes matters difficult and complicated.

Wehave in mind, of course, Bills and questions of a consistently democratic
character. Can Social-Democracy in this respect count on assistance from the
Constitutional-Democratic Party? Certainly not. Can the Cadets, who are now
fully prepared for undisguised compromise on terms which leave nothing of their
programmatic demands, skimpy though they are and reduced to a bare minimum by
various reservations and exceptions—can the Cadets be expected to annoy
the government by democratic interpellations? We all remember that already in
the Second Duma the speeches of the Cadet orators in making interpellations
became very colourless and often turned into infantile prattle or polite and
even deferential inquiries made with a slight bow. And now, when the
Duma’s “effectiveness” in the matter of weaving strong and
reliable nets for the people, nets that would enmesh them like chains, has
become the talk of the town, Their Excellencies, the ministers, can sleep in
peace: they will seldom be bothered by the Cadets—after all, they have to
legislate!—and even if they are bothered, it will be with due observance
of all the rules of politeness. Not for nothing did Milyukov at his election
meetings promise to “guard the flame”. And is Milyukov the only one?
Does not Dan’s unconditional rejection of the
“down-with-the-Duma” slogan signify thesame guarding of the flame? And is not Plekhanov advising Social-Democracy
to follow the same policy of “politeness” when he talks about
“supporting the liberal bourgeoisie”, whose
“struggle” amounts to nothing more than curtsies and low bows?

Therecan be no question of the Cadets seconding the legislative proposals of
the Social-Democrats, for these Bills will have a pronounced propaganda
character, will express to the full consistently democratic demands, and that,
of course, will cause as much irritation among the Cadets as among the
Octobrists and even the Black Hundreds.

Andso the Cadets will have to be left out of the account in this respect
too. In the matter of making interpellations and presenting Bills the
Social-Democrats can count only on the support of groups to the left of the
Cadets. Apparently, together with the Social-Democrats, they will number up to
thirty deputies, thus providing the full technical possibility of displaying
initiative in this direction. It is not, of course, a question of any bloc, but
only of those “joint actions”, which, in the words of the London
Congress resolution, “must exclude any possibility of deviations from the
Social-Democratic programme and tactics and serve only the purpose of a general
onslaught both against reaction and the treacherous tactics of the liberal
bourgeoisie”.

[1]Secondto none, as Louis XVIII in 1815 called the reactionary French
Chamber of Deputies.  —Lenin

[2]Unionof the Russian People—an extremely reactionary
Black-Hundred organisation of monarchists, founded in St. Petersburg in
October 1905 to fight the revolutionary movement. It was a union of
reactionary landlords, big houseowners, merchants, police officials,
clergymen, middle-class townspeople, kulaks, and declassed and criminal
elements. The Union was headed by V.A. Bobrinsky, A.I. Dubrovin,
P.A. Krushevan, N.Y. Markov 2nd, V.M. Purishkevich, and others. Its press
organs were the newspapersRusskoye Znamya(Russian Banner),
Obyedineniye (Unity), andGroza(Storm). The Union
had branches in many towns.

Itupheld the tsarist autocracy, semi-feudal landlordism, and the
privileges of the nobles. It adopted as its programme slogan the old
monarchist and nationalist motto of the days of serfdom—
“Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationhood”. The Union’s
principal method of struggle against the revolution was pogroms and
murder. With the aid and connivance of the police, its members openly and
with impunity beat up and murdered revolutionary workers and
democratically-minded intellectuals, broke up and shot down meetings,
organised anti-Jewish pogroms, and hounded non-Russian nationalities.

Afterthe dissolution of the Second Duma the Union divided into two
organisations: the League of Michael the Archangel, headed by Purishkevich,
which stood for the Third Duma being used for counter-revolutionary
purposes, and the Union of the Russian People proper, headed by Dubrovin,
which continued the tactics of open terrorism. Both these reactionary
organisations were abolished during the bourgeois-democratic February
revolution (1917). After the October Socialist Revolution the former
members of these organisations took an active part in counter-revolutionary
insurrections, and plots, against the Soviet government.

[3]Zubri(literally “aurochs”) applied in Russian
political literature to the extreme Right-wing representatives of
reactionary landlordism (die-hards).

[4]RusskoyeZnamya(Russian Banner)—a
Black-Hundred newspaper, organ of the Union of the Russian People,
published in St. Petersburg from November 1905 to 1917.

[5]GolosMoskvy(Voice of Moscow)—a Moscow daily
newspaper organ of the Octobrist Party, published from December 1906 to
June 1915.